Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Laurefindel" data-source="post: 7584157" data-attributes="member: 67296">To add to the &quot;swingyness&quot; of 5e skill checks, we, as players and often as DMs too, like to roll the dice. Rolling dice is fun; there is a certain thrill to know whether they will come up in your favour (heck, there are many casino games based solely on that principle).But technically - and 5e insists more on than point than any previous editions of D&amp;D - a skill check should only be initiated when a) the outcome is uncertain and b) failure implies a significant consequence. Otherwise, the characters are assumed to be successful in their endeavours. But many DMs are quick to call for a roll when the outcome should have been pretty much set, and players are only happy to comply. Because let's face it, rolling is fun.This of course does not create the perceived issue here, but I think it exacerbates it by creating situations where the able fails more often than it should.But back on the subject, I like the 2d10 for skills. The DCs are mostly unaffected, and advantage/disadvantage plays out well. Since it's not an attack roll, critical range is irrelevant, and while it is not a true bell curve, it distributes the odds nicely toward 10s and 11s while retaining a certain swing. So while I like the &quot;one d20 to rule them all&quot; design behind D&amp;D, 2d10 ability checks is a nice, un-intrusive&nbsp; fix to the lack of reliability based on training for skill checks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Laurefindel, post: 7584157, member: 67296"] To add to the "swingyness" of 5e skill checks, we, as players and often as DMs too, like to roll the dice. Rolling dice is fun; there is a certain thrill to know whether they will come up in your favour (heck, there are many casino games based solely on that principle). But technically - and 5e insists more on than point than any previous editions of D&D - a skill check should only be initiated when a) the outcome is uncertain and b) failure implies a significant consequence. Otherwise, the characters are assumed to be successful in their endeavours. But many DMs are quick to call for a roll when the outcome should have been pretty much set, and players are only happy to comply. Because let's face it, rolling is fun. This of course does not create the perceived issue here, but I think it exacerbates it by creating situations where the able fails more often than it should. But back on the subject, I like the 2d10 for skills. The DCs are mostly unaffected, and advantage/disadvantage plays out well. Since it's not an attack roll, critical range is irrelevant, and while it is not a true bell curve, it distributes the odds nicely toward 10s and 11s while retaining a certain swing. So while I like the "one d20 to rule them all" design behind D&D, 2d10 ability checks is a nice, un-intrusive fix to the lack of reliability based on training for skill checks. [/QUOTE]

Verification